4 ms·

Encryption is worthless in the face of an organization that can compromise virtually any piece of hardware connected to the internet. Law enforcement doesn't h

by rl3 11y ago

Encryption is worthless in the face of an organization that can compromise virtually any piece of hardware connected to the internet. Law enforcement doesn't have that capability, hence their desire for a legal circumvention mechanism. I'm sure Rogers' views differ from Hayden's just for the sake of towing the administration's line.

upofadown 11y ago
I think you really have to expand that to include physical access ... the NSA apparently does a lot of break ins and interception of devices in transit. With our current understanding it seems that doing something like PGP on a locally obtained system running, say, OpenBSD would be fairly safe from intelligence agencies.
mtgx 11y ago
Encryption is not worthless. It makes mass surveillance more expensive. There's a huge difference between being able to hack into anything (which is what the NSA has proven it can do) and being able to hack into everything, all at once, all the time, easily. Our goal should be to move the scale closer to the former and as far away as possible from the latter, while also trying to make it explicitly illegal to do the latter and ensuring the abuses get punished (the rare times they are uncovered through whistleblowing or some lucky lawsuits).
- rl3 11y ago
  This is true. Admittedly, I should have worded my statement differently. Yes, encryption makes mass surveillance more expensive. However, hacking everything, all at once, all the time is not a requium for successful masss surveillance in the face of strong encryption. The bulk of communications are centralized somehow, either via their networking model or via common client software. Take Skype for example. NSA/GCHQ would never give up their ability to conduct mass surveillance on that platform. If Microsoft refused to cooperate for whatever reason (unlikely), they'd simply compromise Skype's network and/or client application accordingly. Such an operation, while expensive, is a far cry from hacking every single Skype user individually.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Rogers is a partisan chicken hawk. There haven't been any wars, or nat-sec proposals, or anything else along those lines that Rogers wasn't beating a drum for. He has recently retired from congress to be a talk-radio host and political pundit.
- matthewmcg 11y ago
  Background on the "chicken hawk" phenomenon for those interested: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...
- rl3 11y ago
  Per the article: >Hayden’s clear and direct dismissal of the FBI’s demands puts him at odds even with the current NSA director, Adm. Mike Rogers, ...
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Oh! Different Mike Rogers. Thanks for pointing that out.

by rl3 11y ago

upofadown 11y ago

I think you really have to expand that to include physical access ... the NSA apparently does a lot of break ins and interception of devices in transit. With our current understanding it seems that doing something like PGP on a locally obtained system running, say, OpenBSD would be fairly safe from intelligence agencies.

mtgx 11y ago

Encryption is not worthless. It makes mass surveillance more expensive. There's a huge difference between being able to hack into anything (which is what the NSA has proven it can do) and being able to hack into everything, all at once, all the time, easily. Our goal should be to move the scale closer to the former and as far away as possible from the latter, while also trying to make it explicitly illegal to do the latter and ensuring the abuses get punished (the rare times they are uncovered through whistleblowing or some lucky lawsuits).

rl3 11y ago
This is true. Admittedly, I should have worded my statement differently. Yes, encryption makes mass surveillance more expensive. However, hacking everything, all at once, all the time is not a requium for successful masss surveillance in the face of strong encryption. The bulk of communications are centralized somehow, either via their networking model or via common client software. Take Skype for example. NSA/GCHQ would never give up their ability to conduct mass surveillance on that platform. If Microsoft refused to cooperate for whatever reason (unlikely), they'd simply compromise Skype's network and/or client application accordingly. Such an operation, while expensive, is a far cry from hacking every single Skype user individually.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Rogers is a partisan chicken hawk. There haven't been any wars, or nat-sec proposals, or anything else along those lines that Rogers wasn't beating a drum for. He has recently retired from congress to be a talk-radio host and political pundit.

matthewmcg 11y ago
Background on the "chicken hawk" phenomenon for those interested: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-trag...
rl3 11y ago
Per the article: >Hayden’s clear and direct dismissal of the FBI’s demands puts him at odds even with the current NSA director, Adm. Mike Rogers, ...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Oh! Different Mike Rogers. Thanks for pointing that out.